The SJWs Lose at the Hugo Awards

Hugo AwardsI know when most rational atheists talk about the idiotic social justice warriors, it’s almost always within the realm of atheism or feminism or race politics, those are probably where they’re the most openly active and most visible for people of a non-theistic bent.  Unfortunately, that’s not at all where they stop, they’re only too happy to stick their sad and pathetic little tendrils into any space that won’t crush them.  Luckily, just about everyone knows that they’re skulking around and either laughs at them or ignores them, despite their shrill whines and now, an increasing number are fighting back.

The Hugo Awards are given out each year at Worldcon, the World Science Fiction Convention, to recognize the best of science fiction and fantasy literature from the previous 12 months.  It has been going on since 1953 and are considered the most prestigious award that can be given to a science fiction or fantasy author.  It was, as all awards should be, a meritocracy, where people who write the best books get the prizes.  I say was though because in 2013, a group of social justice warriors decided they ought to get involved and force their political agenda on the awards process.

Back then, the Bulletin of the Science Fiction Writers of America (SFWA), was attacked by a bunch of digital radicals demanding “justice” after a book cover was proclaimed to be too suggestive and not used in publication.  This resulted in two well-known authors, Mike Resnick and Barry Malzburg, being removed from the journal.  The reign of political and social correctness has gone on ever since.  There are people like Nora Jemisin, who says that political tolerance “disturbs” her and Jim C. Hines who wants anyone who disagrees with and satirizes political or religious thought to be bodily thrown from the SFWA.

This has continued on to the Hugo Awards, which can only be voted on by people who pay to attend Worldcon.  This has resulted in a considerable uptick in attending memberships which may, or may not, actually increase the number of attendees. Many, it seems, are only trying to get their politically motivated votes in the ballot box and don’t even care about the Awards, and perhaps even science fiction or fantasy literature at all.  It’s a move for political correctness, not literary worthiness.  It no longer matters what you write, it’s who you are and what you write about that makes a difference.  Non-leftist writers have been ostracized because they might just say something that our liberal control freaks don’t like.  At the 2014 Hugo Awards, Jonathan Ross was forced to cancel his appearance because liberals feared that he might… MIGHT… make a fat joke.  Seriously, these people are out of control.

But all is not lost, earlier this year, writers Larry Correia and Brad R. Torgersen started the Sad Puppies campaign which sought to bring attention to this social justice warrior brouhaha and break the political and social intolerance that liberals have brought to the awards in recent years.  Luckily, now that the Hugo Award Nominations have been announced for 2015, it’s clear that they have been overwhelmingly successful and most candidates put forward by the Sad Puppies have been nominated. The liberal world exploded because many of the candidates self-identify as libertarians and conservatives, something that they simply cannot tolerate in their little echo chamber.  Members have gone so far as to block members of the Worldcon committee on Twitter and Tumblr for daring to ignore their liberal demands.  It’s really kind of sad.

Yet the fight goes on, many sci-fi and fantasy authors are being openly discriminated upon and excommunication from the science fiction community.  David Drake, David Weber, L.E. Modesitt Jr., Kevin J. Anderson, Eric Flint, Orson Scott Card, Brad R. Torgersen, Larry Correia and Sarah A. Hoyt, among others, are suffering attacks because of their politics and not because of their skills.  They’ve coined a word for these liberal asshats,  CHORFs – Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics.  That pretty well describes the far-left social justice warrior.

There is a lot in common here between sci-fi fanaticism and #Gamergate.  Vox Day had this to say about the similarities:

The connection between Sad Puppies and #GamerGate is that both groups are striking back against the left-wing control freaks who have subjected science fiction to ideological control for two decades and are now attempting to do the same thing in the game industry. #GamerGate has shown people in science fiction, in fantasy, in comics, and even in journalism that you don’t have to hide what you truly think anymore because SJWs are going to attack you and try to drive you out of a job. You can read, write, develop, and play what you want without fear of their disapproval.

It is time that people rise up against this kind of absurd liberal oppression, where it’s political correctness that means more than actual merit.  The Hugo Awards were not designed to award people for their social consciousness, but for their work in the field of writing science fiction and fantasy.  It doesn’t matter what you think, it matters what you write.  The same is true of television and movies, where it shouldn’t make a difference what a director or an actor or a producer thinks, only the end-product of their labors.  Unfortunately, these liberal idiots get butt-hurt because someone doesn’t follow the social justice collective and they must set out to call them names, harm their careers and deny them their due for what they’ve actually done with their lives.  Is it any wonder there’s such a backlash against liberal stupidity these days?  Here’s hoping it keeps up and picks up in the future.

16 thoughts on “The SJWs Lose at the Hugo Awards

  1. 1. When writing about the Hugo Awards, you're encouraged to use the actual official Hugo Awards logo, not one of the unsuccessful submissions for the logo.

    2. Your article says that the Hugo Awards "can only be voted on by people who pay to attend Worldcon." That is not true. You're misunderstanding the rules. Any person who joins the World Science Fiction Society by joining the current World Science Fiction Convention as at least a Supporting member can nominate and vote on the Hugo Awards. Think of the Supporting membership as the actual membership to WSFS (currently $40 this year). To attend the convention, you have to purchase an Attending membership, which includes the $40 basic WSFS membership.

    The Hugo Awards are the awards presented by the members of the World Science Fiction Society. They are not a juried award; they are popularly voted by the members of WSFS. They represent what the members of WSFS collectively decide are the works they liked most from the previous year. Membership is open to anyone who wants to pay the membership dues and participate. The awards are selected in a two-stage process. In the first round the five works in each category with the most nominations are named as finalists, using the "First Past the Post" voting system. In the second round, the members vote among the finalists, plus the option of "No Award," using Instant Runoff Voting, a system that tends to produce a winner with the broadest support from among the members, not just a work with a narrow but well-organized following. (No Award has been selected five times in the history of the Hugo Awards; if it wins, no award is presented in that category.) Both Attending and Supporting members can vote in both stages of the process. The winners are announced at a ceremony at the World Science Fiction Convention.

    If you have more questions about how the Hugo Awards actually work, please contact us at TheHugoAwards.org.

    Kevin Standlee
    Hugo Awards Marketing Committee
    My recent post Voting Open for 2015 Hugo Awards

    1. While I appreciate the minor corrections, nothing you had to say really had anything to do with the core content of the article. Yes, I was aware that I was using the wrong logo, I did it on purpose to denote that people trying to push writers for political reasons and not for literary reasons aren't really operating in the manner in which the Hugos are meant to be used. It is, in essence, a "fake" Hugo. Finally, I noted that a lot of people seem to be buying memberships, supporting and attending, specifically for the purpose of politicizing the Hugos and pushing a specific left-wing agenda. I understand that you guys can't do a thing about it, you can't control why people vote the way they do, I was just pointing out that it was a political ploy and one that, luckily, seems to have failed.

      1. Are you aware that your statement that the Hugo Awards "can only be voted on by people who pay to attend Worldcon" is incorrect? Also, do you understand that your following sentence "This has resulted in a considerable uptick in attending memberships" isn't actually true? While the number of _non_ attending (Supporting) memberships has skyrocketed to the point that this year's Worldcon will probably be the first one ever to have more Supporting than Attending members, the number of Attending members is growing at a rate comparable to most recent Worldcons. This information is easily available from the current Worldcon's membership numbers page (http://sasquan.org/member-numbers/)

        Obviously, nobody knows how all of those additional members will vote (assuming they do choose to vote, which seems to be a good assumption at this time). They could all be there to vote No Award, or they could also be there to vote for works whose nomination has caused a greater furor than I can ever recall in the more than thirty years I've been attending Worldcon. Nobody is going to know until the results are announced in August.
        My recent post Voting Open for 2015 Hugo Awards

        1. But if not to vote, what would be your understanding why those people have bought supporting memberships at all? There has to be a reason for it and while we won’t know for a while how many votes are ultimately cast, I’m willing to hazard a guess that there will be a significantly higher number of votes cast than you’ve seen in past years. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not down on the Hugos, I’ve been to my fair share of Worldcons in my life, I’m a fan. I’m not blaming Worldcon or the Hugos for this in any way. I’m just saying that it’s a shame that there are a group of people out there who want everything to revolve around their particular social and political views. They don’t want a meritocracy, where the best man (or woman) wins, they want people who push their agenda to win all awards because it makes them feel better. To be honest, I wouldn’t be particularly surprised if most of these additional supporting members vote “party line”, never having read any of the books up for the awards. The Hugos are not alone in this, it has happened, and will continue to happen, in a lot of different venues, I just hate to see the Hugo awards besmirched by such political activism. As you say, we won’t know until the awards are actually handed out, but you also say that it’s a pretty good assumption that they will vote and I think it’s pretty obvious how they are likely to vote as well. I guess we’ll just have to see how this shakes out in Spokane.

  2. Not every person joining Worldcon, even as a supporting member, is doing so to vote on this year's Hugo Awards. There is a very contentious four-way site-selection election also going on this year, and you have to be at least a supporting member to vote, so it would be logical to assume that there were going to be a relatively large number of supporting members relative to attending members anyway. However, I agree that nearly all of the recently-joining supporting members are going to vote on the Hugos. There is absolutely no way of telling whether they are so-called "SJWs" who are there to mindlessly lock-step vote No Award (as their opponents would put it) or so-called "Puppies" who are there to mindlessly follow the marching orders of their minders (as their opponents would put it).

    You said, "I'm just saying that it's a shame that there are a group of people out there who want everything to revolve around their particular social and political views. They don't want a meritocracy, where the best man (or woman) wins, they want people who push their agenda to win all awards because it makes them feel better."

    I'd suggest this is true of many people involved in this controversy, whether they're voting for No Award or for any of the nominees that appeared on the "Puppy" slates.
    My recent post Voting Open for 2015 Hugo Awards

    1. I didn't say they are, but you're the one who agreed that there is an unusual spike in the supporting memberships this year. There are always people joining to vote on the next Worldcon venue but I see no reason why this year would be any different. People are still voting for reasons other than the quality of the particular books or authors up for the awards. That's a problem.

      1. Do you consider joining and nominating/voting in an effort to "stick it to the SJWs" as as "voting for reasons other than the quality of the particular books or authors up for the awards"?

        Furthermore, I notice that you have Eric Flint listed among of a group of people that have "coined a word for those liberal asshats" believing that it "pretty well describes the far-left social justice warrior." You should read some of Eric Flint's words on the subject of SJWs and the Hugos.
        http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2015/05/14/and

        You'll find that he is one of those far-left social justice warriors you claim to despise.

        In terms of basic facts, you also seem to have ignored the fact that it was actually the Rabid Puppies slate which was wildly successful, with the Sad Puppies piggybacking on that success.

        IN summation, i find it very interesting that as much time as you spend decrying those horrible people who are trying to make the Hugos about something other than the books and the authors you… don't actually talk about any of the Hugo nominated works. Interesting.

        1. I wouldn't, but then again, I haven't been to a Worldcon in many years. My convention-going has dropped dramatically, whereas I used to go to a dozen or more per year, today I hit exactly one. That is, however, neither here nor there. And no, I don't talk about the nominations because they really don't matter to my point. The Hugos are ostensibly about literary works. Any voting based on any other factor than the quality of the literary works go beyond the purpose of the awards. The same goes for any other award. If they started handing out Oscars based on the political views of the directors, that would be wrong. If they handed out Emmys based on how much support the actors gave to particular political causes, that would be wrong.

          1. You didn't actually address any of my points, other than agreeing you didn't talk about any of the Hugo nominated works.

          2. I pointed out that there was no reason why I should talk about any of the nominees because the nominees didn't matter to the point I was making.

  3. I have been a Hugo-voter for several years. I haven't seen any organized pressure from "social justice warriors" or seen any sort of slates with "appropriate" voting suggestions. Untill now. I partly understand the issues the dog lovers are pushing, but after reading most of the short stories categories I must say: _really?_ I those the best stories they think are better than the usual nominees? I have written a yearly essay about Hugo nominees for a Finnish fanzine for years, and I have often heavily criticized the nominees – but now they are worse than ever, by a wide margin. All those John C Wright stories? They are among the worst things I have ever read.
    My recent post Analog Science Fiction and Fact, May 2005

    1. They're not trying to convince others to vote their way, they're just having their own side buying more memberships so they can cast more votes. In essence, they're trying to buy victory. They don't care about the quality of the stories, I doubt any of them have even read them, they just want to promote people who hold their particular set of political and social beliefs and vote down those who do not.

      1. Who is "they"?

        And again, if "they" haven't read them, it's interesting that TPI, and a large number of the commenters on file770 and other sites talk about the dreck within them with so much detail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)